Apologies that this is very late. I ran into issues with travel and could not resend until after landing. Do not panic -- this is a fairly light agenda.
Chair: Aleecia
Main topic: Action item review; new issues that do not have action items
---------------------------
Administrative
---------------------------
1. Selection of scribe
---------------------------
Old business
---------------------------
2. Review of overdue action items: http://www.w3.org/2011/tracking-protection/track/actions/overdue?sort=owner
We have 55 items listed listed as overdue.
I believe we should just close this one, ideally with a pointer to a summary of the call in the notes field:
Action-321, Call last week on David's questions, Tom Lowenthal
I believe the following action items have progress but are not complete, and could usefully have an updated due date or be closed.
Action-255, financial reporting text, Alan Chapell (original text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0243.html followed by conversation that became unproductive. I think Alan plans to revise his text based on comments from Nick.)
Action-246, public commitment text, David Wainberg (revised text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0154.html) /* proposes a path we had previously discussed and decided not to pursue, and is rather different from the original action as assigned. It also appears to violate our charter. */
Action-301, intermediaries and HTTP headers, Rob van Eijk (descriptive text of the problem and possible approaches: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0105.html) With no feedback, it is time to draft normative text(s).
In some cases, texts are on the dlist, but without the action number in the subject line to link them to the database. When so, there is some housekeeping for the action owners to do (one option: add the URL for the text proposal on the dlist into the note field in the action.) In other cases, I see no progress on the following actions, and we should check to see if there is still interest in addressing them. If not, we close them.
Action-264, share definition, Amy Colando
Action-275, reword to avoid "tracking," Nick Doty
Action-260, update debugging text, Nick Doty
Action-318, JS window / navigator update, Nick Doty
Action-319, non-norm 3rd party exceptions without JS, Nick Doty
Action-284, no altering DNT signal set from UA, Ian Fette
Action-279, graduated response, Ian Fette
Action-304, URL re-direction, Ian Fette
Action-303, defn "visit", Ian Fette
Action-313, normative text around Adrian's exception proposal, Ian Fette
Action-266, retention grace period, Ian Fette
Action-131, use case for mixed first- and third-party interactions, Roy Fielding
Action-258, Propose 'should' for same-party and why, Tom Lowenthal /* This action could use a better name */
Action-302, intermediary requirements, Tom Lowenthal
Action-263, updated minimization text, Ninja Marnau
Action-276, financial logging retention, Lou Mastria
Action-286, DAA text on "unlinkability," Lou Mastria
Action-285, non-normative text around non-UA software that sets DNT headers, Jonathan Mayer
Action-298, data minimization examples, Jonathan Mayer
Action-293, graduated response examples, Jonathan Mayer
Action-315, verify ad associations' use case, Brendan Riordan-Butterworth
Action-257, prepare text on service provider options, Matthias Schunter
Action-317, examples on same party, David Singer
Action-316, when service provider indication is necessary, David Singer
Action-308, coordinate exceptions text across TPE and Compliance specs, David Singer
Action-307, non-norm text on 119, David Singer
Action-320, examples on out-of-band consent, David Singer
Action-282, one DNT header, David Singer
Action-268, party sync across both documents, David Singer
Action-249, qualifiers to reflect permissions, sync across both documents, David Singer
Action-291, screen size, Kevin Smith
Action-295, should v. must, Berin Szoka /* this action could use a better title */
Action-289, define "unlinkable", Rachel Thomas
Action-287, define "user expectation", Rachel Thomas
Action-270, DAA text for service providers, Rachel Thomas
Action-300, service provider option, Heather West
Action-288, update compliance draft with non-normative "unlinkable" text option from Shane, Heather West
Action-271, update service provider language, Heather West
Action-251, add DNT:0 defn, Heather West
Action-212, UA consent to turn on DNT, Shane Wiley /* confused. Created in June, listed as dropped in August, yet due in September? */
Action-306, define "declared" data, Shane Wiley
Action-280, UA explanatory text & examples, Shane Wiley
Action-265, update 3.8.1, Shane Wiley
Action-274, independent use for service providers, Shane Wiley
Action-314, multi-domain site exceptions, Shane Wiley
Some of these should be pending review; see agenda item 5.
---------------------------
New business
---------------------------
3. Quick check that callers are identified
4. Raised issues that need actions to proceed
(if someone takes actions here, we will open the issue; if no one takes actions, we close the issue for lack of interest)
ISSUE-174 How do we create straightforward compliance for implementers retaining data for N weeks or less?
ISSUE-175 Have an appendix of best practices?
ISSUE-178 Add "Marketing" to list of permitted uses in Compliance document
ISSUE-180 Add "advertising" as a Permitted Use in the Compliance Document
5. I believe these actions should shift to pending review, and are ready for discussion on this call:
Action-273, text about multiple first parties, Rob Sherman (text: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Sep/0247.html) After discussion on the mailing list, I think we have differing views, but I did not see any indication Rob wants to change his text. (Yet, perhaps it would help to have non-normative text to clarify that a social widget is not what we are talking about in this section? There seemed to be confusion there on the dlist, and that means there could be confusion from other readers too.) Do we have alternative proposals?
Action-277, text regarding contracts, David Singer (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0078.html) Do we have alternative proposals? David also suggests editing changes in a follow up -- do we need an action against Justin or Heather here?
Action-267, DAA's 1st/3rd party definitions, Rachael Thomas (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0159.html) plus bonus definition of affiliate (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0175.html) and Kimon on third parties and control (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-tracking/2012Oct/0176.html). I believe at this point that we may have different views on definitions, but do not see any indication that Rachael wants to change her text based on the discussion. I think that means we have two new alternatives for 1st / 3rd party definitions, but perhaps those can be merged with the proposal from Shane et al and have fewer options to consider.
---------------------------
6. Announce next meeting & adjourn
================ Infrastructure =================
Zakim teleconference bridge:
VoIP: sip:zakim@voip.w3.org
Phone +1.617.761.6200 passcode TRACK (87225)
IRC Chat: irc.w3.org, port 6665, #dnt
*****